quote:
Popper implies that a falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified.
Popper implies no such thing.
The idea behind falsifiability is that there is potentially some observation that would render the theory false. It doesn't mean that it will necessarily be rendered false, simply that it has the potential to.
quote:
I concede the point, however, that the statement that every falsifiable theory will eventually be falsified, is remains unproven. It requires proving that every collection of future observations for a theory, must contain at least one observation that will contradict the theory. It is not trivial to prove this.
Demonstrating that a theory is falsifiable doesn't require proof that there will be a future observation that will contradict the theory. Instead, it simply requires hypothesizing an observation that, if made, would contradict the theory. (In fact, of course, it's considerably more complicated than this because, among other things, of the problem with naive falsificationism. However, for purposes of this thread, my statement of the point is sufficient.)
You seem to be conflating falsification with the idea that a scientific theory is nothing more than as close a guess as we can make right now based on available evidence which will inevitably be refined, or completely junked, based on future discoveries. While I believe the two ideas are accurate, they are completely different concepts in science, and conflating them as you do ultimately results in nonsense, as you have produced.
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
